I grew up in Alabama, I met a few bad boys, but, I was always able to escape either through intimidation or intelligence. But there was always a majority that had no choice. They were picked on and abused.

I believe that majority lives and is at the root of the gun problem. They still do not know what it is to be a man without a little backup.

The same applies with police. They were usually picked on and have little confidence in their manhood. Thus abuse, murder, lies, and a joy in believing that everyone is a criminal untill proven innocent.

Will we ever explore this problem or will we cry the constitution for ever getting nowhere.

Here's the deal. I don't need a gun, been in just as many scrapes as you have and probably more. Never needed one. Won't have one in my house. Don't have a problem with my manhood.

I protect myself and my family with my wits. I believe that as long as the Government has guns, we should have guns. But, is that the real issue here. I have some doubts.

Cheers,

-- Infidel (Barbarians@thegate.com), February 03, 2000

Answers

You state, "I believe that as long as the Government has guns, we should have guns."

You also state, "Never needed one(a gun). Won't have one in my house."

You seem to have trouble reconciling your positions, as they are opposed to each other.

Are you trolling here? I have read your posts before, and I never remember them being this illogical. What gives?

-- J (Y2J@home.com), February 03, 2000.

Interesting topic. I happen to disagree with your psychological assumptions however.

I've never seen a study in the psychlit (psychiatric/psychological literature) to support:

1. Men use gun ownership to compensate for measurably low masculinity (measured by the MMPI). "They still do not know what it is to be a man without a little backup."

2. Police officers have a higher incidence of childhood emotional abuse than the general population.

3. Police officers commit a higher level of abuse, murder, and lies than the general population.

4. Police officers report increased satisfaction in response to the belief that "everyone is a criminal until proven innocent".

"Will we ever explore this problem or will we cry the constitution for ever getting nowhere. " We first have to establish through research that your hypothesis is correct. Namely, are the four assumptions listed accurate?

By "explore the problem" are you suggesting that cops and bullies just need workshops to get in touch with the "inner child" to resolve the childhood wounds which you suggest motivate the adult behavior which is a "problem"? ...just trying to understand your view:)

There are 2 ways of looking at the world: either one thinks relating to external objects (other people) is a process of cooperation (give and take), or it is about control (domination).

If one of your assumptions is that bullies and cops enjoy dominating other folks, then they would be considered to look at the world from the paradigm of control, and so would not respond to the insight oriented RET (Rational-Emotive Therapy) currently employed to treat childhood trauma in adults. So the problem you identified, if I understood you, would not be resolved.

Final food for thought, how can you defend your family with your wit if you don't speak Chinese and Russian?

..just generating conversation, no offense.

-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), February 03, 2000.

Now J,

I wasn't attacking the right to bear arms, I was attacking many of our motivations for bearing arms. From what I have observed have nothing to do with the right to bear arms.

I suspect that many who bear arms do so out of social training IMHO. I would never be a troll. I have better things to do.

I love this forum, but I do get a little irritated with the immovable and one view only slant of this illustrious group.

I've learned much here. Would be nice if the right would try and understand the views of others.

My attacks on the right are only intended to invoke discussion.

Fighting fire with fire so to speak.

Cheers,

-- Infidel (Barbarians@thegate.net), February 03, 2000.

I carry two arms with me at all times.

-- dinosaur (dinosaur@williams-net.com), February 03, 2000.

Hokie,

Very nicely put in a phony kind of way. I think sticking a pole up a black mans ass and near tearing his intestines out sums up my theory nicely. The evidence is in nationwide me thinks.

I am not advocating that police get in touch with their inner child, I'm advocating that we call a spade a spade.

And also, what are the roots of this national mania with guns? The consitution? Right!

A little less psycho babble and a little more Hokie would help.

-- Infidel (Barbarians@thegate.net), February 03, 2000.

I am a regular poster to this group, and I just would like to say this: I was raped once, but if anyone tries it again, they will be stopped by a 2 bullets in the center of the chest, then one in the head.

I am a petite woman, and not physically able to defend myself against most men who would take from me what I would not give. BTW, I have, in the past, saved my life through my wit. The problem is that there are too many nutcases running around drugged out of their minds on drugs, and they are beyong reasoning with. This is why they call guns The Great Equalizer.

nuff said.

-- (no not this time@vvv.com), February 03, 2000.

Infidel, I am a woman with a gun. A very feminine woman. Go figure.

-- (LucilleR@no.way), February 03, 2000.

Nuff Said:

Rosie O'Donnell and the gun control wackos think that you don't have a right to defend yourself. Who knows, maybe they think that you are to blame for being raped. Maybe you should have called the police, hoping for a speedy response. Fat chance. The wilful ignorance of those retards is definitely beyond reason.

-- haha (haha@haha.com), February 03, 2000.

Infidel, also this: I am completely confused why you would complain about cops being bullies and the existance of police brutality (I am wildly against this, too, having known people who have been victimized by them) in the same post complaining about people who have guns.

You know, most folks that I know who shoot or collect guns or hunt are some of the nicest, most polite and considerate folks that you'd ever want to know.

But you know, I agree with you about one thing. Mean people suck.

-- (no not this time@vvv.net), February 03, 2000.

Infidel,

You are right; police brutality exists. I just think it would strengthen your argument if you could provide documentation demonstrating that police demonstrate a higher level of brutality than say firemen or military or security guards or the population at large. It was be interesting to see that comparison; I think we all would be surprised.

-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), February 03, 2000.

You know, we have a major problem here with these goddamn guns. I do not have an answer and I was not proposing the consfication of them.

I was trying to point out, what are the orrigins of this garbage. We seem to be the only nation with such a national problem. Surely a woman has the right to kill if being attacked.

I personally would like to be transported back to the fifties where Jim Bob cut my hosepipe cause my sister broke up with him.

Somethings got to give. This is rediculous. We're heading towards Mad Max because both sides are immovable.

Only hunters should be shot! Big men!

-- Infidel (Barbarians@thegate.net), February 03, 2000.

Re l

-- another government hack (keepwatching_2000@yahoo.com), February 03, 2000.

Infidel, You should check out the movie "Braveheart" and watch it. Those with no power have historically been abused by the powers that be. I also think you are incorrect in assuming that a real man doesn't need a gun. He just doesn't need to use it most of the time. The men I know that have guns don't have them because their male self image "needs" them. They are simply considered a tool for a specific purpose.

-- (formerly@nowhere.con), February 03, 2000.

Hokie,

Your in rare form tonight. Documentaion? Pick up a newspaper. I personally dont keep stats.

Time for bed. You, not me.

Later,

Cheers,

-- Infidel (Barbarians@thegat.net), February 03, 2000.

Infidel, Taking God's name in vain is extremely offensive to Christians. Was that your intent? Respectfully, RLW

-- RLW (rlw6883@ipa.net), February 03, 2000.

Anecdote: my son-in-law's brother is a cop,brand new and still an idealist. About a year ago, he made a stop. The suspect attacked him, tried to shoot him. Rick overpowered him, but for hours could not believe that the man really meant for him to die. It's easy to dis a cop. It's hard to do his or her job. You have some bad ones, but the majority, the good ones, keep you safe enough to post here. I have guns. Some of them came back from the 'Nam. My son learned to shoot in Bosnia and the Gulf. There are really people who don't know you and are just plain mean. They kill. Want to sacrifice yourself? Do it.Just keep in mind that it's not virtual-you ain't coming back. Don't make that decision for you wife, child or parent though.Or if you don't have ***** enough to protect your dependents , don't take down the people who do it for you.

-- another government hack (keepwatching_2000@yahoo.com), February 03, 2000.

OK, OK, OK,

Well even I can see I've made no point what so ever. Would you recommend this government hack(Now thats a laugh) get a 22 guage for small people or something with a little more destructive effect. 5'7 160 pounds. Yes, yes, middle age spread and beer bucket. Comes from sitting around arguing with pointy heads on the internet.

Good night all. I will dream of a new topic to arouse the hopeless right.

Later,

-- Infidel (Barbarians@thegate.net), February 03, 2000.

The power tools site must have set this asshole off. BTW infantdel, if we have have a war between people who like guns and people who don't , who do you think will win?

-- Info junkie (Ilike@it.here), February 04, 2000.

so i say to myself, self-- looks like a nice fire, people sitting around a fire in a circle talking.as i sit down i hear someone say,"mean people suck." i light my pipe and think about that for a minute or three.

i lived in indiana until i was eleven,then my dad died and we,my mother and i, moved to new york city.my dad had been a county sheriff.

that first day of school in new york i got my butt kicked three different times. by the end of the second day i had joined a gang. yeah,mean people suck.

i escaped to the service, became an military policeman. there were some good cops--and some bad cops.i understand from those that knew him that my dad was a good cop,don't know for sure.know i tried to wear the white hat,i think. know one thing:mean people with guns really suck,and bad cops with guns really,really suck.

big gap here...war,death,more guns,all kinds--big guns. little bombs that would blow your manhood off. i turned into a mean person with a gun. i was good at it. i survived. when i got home one of the first people of maybe a hundred i met before i took my uniform off,yelled at me.she said, "you army guys suck." i remember wanting to kill her.

big gap here again... new job,marriage,kids,house, hunting, fast-draw club, police pistol combat,long range shooter,carried a gun on me all the time.learned four different martial arts. after a while i just didn't want to kill anymore dove,or quail, or deer. it seemed like a sucky thing to do seeing as how i didn't really need the meat in order to survive. now i still keep a gun or three,wish i didn't feel the need to keep one,but i do.i have used one on one or three or more times to save another life. so i justify it that way.don't ever want to be too comfortable keeping, or having to use one. i'm still a warrior,albeit an old one,and warriors,young and old need to be reminded by their tribe (community)be careful don't learn to like war, or guns,or killing. and to not forget that without a tribe there is no need for warriors;and they should not rape,or bully,or kill members of their own tribe. perhaps there will always be enemys... and hence a need for warriors, and guns. when it is still,4am in the morning, just me and the alka-seltzer,in my perfect world there would be no need for guns,or any reason for mean people to stay mean. thanks for letting me sit around the fire.the fire warms my body,the conversation warms my heart.

tso mountie

-- tso (bestrong@cmc.net), February 04, 2000.

Infidel,

I came into this thread kindof late, obviously.

What has become obvious is that a number of different folks responding above have different reasons for owning firearms. I have known some of the types of cops and non-law enforcement types you spoke of with what sure seemed like ego problems. Known them well enough to have learned to be darn wary, like you.

Until this society evolves to the point that we can trust each other and trust those in authority not to seriously abuse us, attack us, and so on, it seems common sense for me to at least own and maintain proficiency with weapons like firearms. I would prefer not to carry concealed. Yet there have been enough times (in my life) that the simple display of a weapon by someone obviously prepared and skilled would have backed things down rapidly, that I really wish I could legally in Ohio. Unfortunately, our Governor will never sign such a bill. Am I talking about armed conflict with a peace officer? Not unless somehow this society comes completely apart! Am I talking about buying time until uniformed help arrives? An awful lot more likely circumstance. Response times in my area commonly range up around 20 minutes.

Perhaps the real sticking point, the root problem for many of us, is trust -- trust in those in authority. Example. Here in Ohio, I grew up with State Troopers as neighbors for years. Then and afterwards, I had always found them most courteous and professional. That has not been my recent experiences. In the last two years I've had two occasions to need information regarding followup to calls I had made from the local post's officers -- and I was made to realize, very rapidly, that my questions were not going to be tolerated, at all. I.e., the same (them against us in the brotherhood) attitude I expect from small town cops as a rule. What changed? My guess is a decade or two of equal opportunity, hiring and promotion quotas, for starters.

Sorry folks, but this ex-Eagle Scout's trust in those in authority has been pretty stretched. I'd sure like to see some high level political candidates truthfully make a position out of ruthlessly working to rebuild that trust (as in earn it); no, I am not going to hold my breath.

Crime statistics? Simply look up stat.s for recent years for England and for Australia. Then, look at Switzerland.

So, to summarize, my position has become pretty darn anti-gun control.

-- Redeye in Ohio (cannot@work.com), February 04, 2000.

Infidel

If you trully had the courage of your convictions you would place a big sign in your front yard that says "My house is a gun free zone". I still find it had to believe that you are not trolling here. Maybe you are just trying to liven things up a bit. Anyways I will fight for my right to keep arming bears and don't you ever dare to try and infringe it.

-- PA Engineer (PA Engineer@longtimelurker.com), February 04, 2000.

What's the 'd***' problem? If it is the number of people killed each year, why are we (as a nation) not more upset by cars and doctors? They kill far more people each year than guns. Oh, they're beneficial. Well, guns have societally beneficial uses, too, when appropriately used. They just don't get mentioned.

I don't have any argument with those, such as Infidel, who "choose" not to own a gun. That is their prerogative. My objection is with those who would force me, as a peaceable person, to live and think their way.

I don't think the problem is the intransigence of good people on both sides of the issue. The problem is violence. As long as we have a violent nature, the violent will always find a bigger rock than the next guy. Let me know when you find a magic cure that automatically minimizes violence and encourages respect for our fellow man. Of course, they will need to be willing to submit to it.

-- Just another coward (my2cents@for.what.its.worth), February 04, 2000.

Tso...Don't really know why, but I was touched by your story... good stuff.

-- Citizen (lost@sea.com), February 04, 2000.

Well, hey, if the reason a guy wants a gun is to prove his masculinity, then is the reason another guy is against guns because he is rejecting his masculinity? Can't have it both ways. So what do you call the anti-gunner who would perform a symbolic castration upon himself, and likewise force a symbolic castration upon others? Which of these two stereotypes is the sicker?

-- Commodity (CDT@TYPEVILLE.COM), February 04, 2000.

There is a good reason for stories like the following. The main point is, don't let anyone disarm you.

(1 Sam 13:19 KJV) "Now there was no [gun] smith found throughout all the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears [guns]:"

(1 Sam 13:20 KJV) "But all the Israelites went down to the [sword/gun controllers] Philistines, to sharpen every man his share, and his coulter, and his ax, and his mattock."

(1 Sam 13:21 KJV) "Yet they had a file for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for the axes, and to sharpen the goads."

(1 Sam 13:22 KJV) "So it came to pass in the day of battle, that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people that were with Saul and Jonathan: but with Saul and with Jonathan his son was there found."

Saul was king of Israel and when it came time to fight off the Philistines it was necessary to use farm tools to do so til they could arm themselves. When it ever comes to that do you want to defend your country with sticks and stones or would you prefer armed citizens.

-- Mark Hillyard (foster@inreach.com), February 04, 2000.

Did I miss it, or was legislation passed authorizing a house to house confiscation of guns??

Why do ya'all feel that it is an imposition to have sufficient background checks on gun buyers?? Why do ya'all think it is unconsitutional to not give you the gun NOW, no questions asked, just because you want it NOW.

The gun control legislation passed and pending means to ferret out the bad guys-Oh, I know, enforce the laws we have-ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

My question is, why do ya'all feel buying a gun should be the same as buying Pokemon cards?? Oh, right, there will be no logical answer to this-The passion with which you NRA's oppose any background checks is impossible to debate. I just sure wish there could be a dialouge-Oh well.

-- futureshock (gray@matter.com), February 04, 2000.

Futureshock

The reason is because once you have to start to ask permission, it only takes a little creativity to deny you for one reason or another, before you know it nobody can get one.

Like the old saying, You let the nose of the camel in the tent, it is not long before the whole camel is in, or something to that effect.

Besides, it not the person who has to go through all the crap to buy a gun who is going to be the problem. Bad guys don't care about the laws, their going to get a gun without to much effort, just like drugs or whatever else tickles their fancy.

-- oboy (oboy @oboy.cxom), February 04, 2000.

Infidel: You slam the Republicans on a previous thread, but now claim that you are for 2nd amendment rights. You need to make up your mind son, because your Democrat buddies have no intentions of allowing you to retain a firearm.

-- (@ .), February 04, 2000.

Yesterday, at the Post Office, I had a package pickup notice in my PO Box. So, I went to the desk to retrive the package and ahead of me in line was a man mailing some packages. Big guy, scruffy clothes, even for this back-woods area. He leaned forward over the counter paying his postage and his jacket came up in back, exposing an 8 inch knife strapped to his belt. It was positioned so that all he needed to do was reach back with his right hand and pull the knife out of it's sheath.

I never did see his face as I was too taken with the knife strapped to his backside.

From time to time it does get crowded in this small postal facility, but it's never bad enough to come in armed.

Beyond a reasonable desire to have some form of protection, guns and knives beome nothing much more than an ego booster for those who want to assert their apperance as rugged or macho. Whatever that's supposed to be.

This man knew full well that anytime he moved the knife showed under his jacket. I suppose he would get the same effect if he unzipped his fly and let his "equipment" hang out. Yes, I've got a few guns, but then there are lots of rattlesnakes and coyotes to be reckoned with. Then too, there's this "home invasion" business that is so popular with teenage gangs. One never knows.

Having a gun (knife) in a common sense fashion isn't a bad thing, But, for someone like the guy with the knife at the Post Office, I am sure when he left it was back to join his friends playing Cowboy & Indians, just kids that haven't grown up.

-- Richard (Astral-Acres@webtv.net), February 04, 2000.

I know lots of men that carry knives on their belt, including my husband, because they *use* them many times throughout their workdays.

Farmers, carpenters, electric linemen, even I carry my old timer around in my pocket and it has come in very handy lots of times.

I have a friend that creates beautiful knives for friends and many are worn like a functional piece of jewelry.

In some states there is a law against carrying blades "concealed"

you should probably think before you let your paranoia pass judgement on people so quickly.

Laurie

-- Laurie in Idaho (laurelayn@yahoo.net), February 04, 2000.

Infidel - read the Fereralistd papers, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and the following:

HABITAT II

UN PLAN If the reason for any law was to save lives , then the first one who be directed towards Doctors (500,000 doctors kill 100,000 people a year). Second one would towards autos (you can check the Stats) You can lay a load handgun or rifle on a table and it will hurt no one. This being America, everyone has the right to their own opinions. The Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights & the Constitution. Not to be interpreted to suit a contrasting purpose against the rights of the people. Oh what was that phrase ..."the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." "For the first time, a federal judge has ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individuals' right to own a gun. In the process, the judge invalidated a 1994 federal law that denies guns to anyone who is under a restraining order to prevent him or her from harassing a spouse. The law was part of a measure aimed at reducing domestic violence by limiting access to guns." LINK "It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."- U.S. Supreme Court -339 U.S. 382, 447 More recently, in 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents... but it does not violate... the Constitution." Later court decisions concurred: the police have no duty to protect you. Boyd v. United States, 116 US 616: "The Court is to protect against any encroachment of constitutionally secured rights. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425: "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as though it had never been passed." "Our task of creating a SOCIALIST AMERICA can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun. "The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are constitutional rights secure." Albert Einstein you don't want to own one thats your choice. my 2 "

-- AW Dragon (awdragon@yahoo.com), February 04, 2000.

tso mountie,

We seem to share a similar path in life (former Marine MP, current target shooter, not a hunter), although I am not as far along as you are.

I only own 4 guns. A .22 rifle (had it since I was a boy), a 12 gauge shotgun (y2k? gun, unloaded & upstairs), a 9mm (wife's bedside) pistol & a .40 caliber pistol (subcompact glock 27 for carry).

I feel that owning guns makes me a more reasonable and responsible person, so I would have to say that I am an exception to Infidel's generalization. I am not obsessed with guns. I am not a bully. I support the 2nd amendment because I truly love America and the Constitution. I know that the crime problem is not a gun problem, it is a problem with the hearts and minds of people.

I've never been in a civilian situation where I needed a gun, and I attribute this to my lifestyle. I live in a low crime neighborhood, I have two big dogs, I keep in shape (hopefully that makes me a less appealing target), and I follow common-sense guidelines for safety.

So when people find out that I carry a gun, they are usually taken aback because of all the ridiculous stereotypes that you, Infidel, purport to be the truth.

And I tell them this; People use guns for four main reasons, other than to hunt:

1) To start trouble. 2) To prolong trouble that is already happening. 3) To prevent trouble before it happens. 4) To end trouble.

Bad guys are motivated by reasons 1&2. Good guys are motivated by resons 3&4. Disarming good guys creates more of 1&2. Arming good guys creates more of 3&4. Disarming bad guys in not an option, because it is not possible.

That's all I have to say about that.

-- Longshot (longshot911@email.com), February 04, 2000.

Inny and fshock,

Simple question for ya. Is a gun an animate or inanimate object? Now, since most inanimate objects are pretty much incapable of doing harm without human intervention, why should I have to ask anyones permission to possess it. I have a bigger problem with inanimate objects that can do damage to people when they go into motion on their own. Ever heard of a car jumping gear and taking off by itself? Now there is when the government has a right to do something. Ever hear of a gun going off when no one was near it? I haven't. They are always being mishandled when they go off. So now what do we do. Obviously, the gun isn't the dangerous object, its the vehicles.

BTW, my family owns several guns. I can effectively handle any and all of them. Now you have a problem, I'm female. No problem with the guns my "manhood". But then my husband's a different story, 6'1" and 200#, I'll have to ask him if he has a problem with his manhood. He may, I don't know, but between you, me, and this fence post (bbs), I certainly don't. :-)

Janette

-- me (me@me.com), February 04, 2000.

Infidel...

.....If you're family is protected by your wits, as you say, judging from that which you display with the initiation of this thread, I would say that they are most obviously "under-protected."

.....As for equating manhood with gun ownership to any degree, there is no parallel to be drawn. Likewise, when you disparage many good, honest, hardworking police officers on the account of the "cowboys" on the force, you do them a grave disservice. You would do well to pray that you never need the assistance of one of these men or women, or, should that occur, that they don't perceive the attitude of contempt you so blatantly display, and return to you the same.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), February 04, 2000.